July 14, 2008

An Open Letter to Prof. Doug Kmiec

(Occasioned by his support for Sen. Barack Obama)

Dear Doug,

I appreciate your email to me during our initial skirmish affirming our friendship in the midst of the disagreement we have over Barack Obama and John McCain.

It's rare in the charged atmosphere of presidential politics that two people of opposing opinions can square off, have it out, so to speak, and shake hands afterward.

In publishing this letter, I intend to make a strong statement of conviction about who should be our next president without losing sight that we are two Catholics who know, respect, and appreciate each other.

It's because of my regard for you over the years that I was so surprised when you first described Sen. Obama as someone who could have special appeal to Catholic voters. When you finally formally endorsed Obama I knew that your name would be mentioned whenever and wherever someone wanted to make the case that Catholics can and should vote for Obama.

Whether you intended to or not, you have become the Catholic poster boy (no slight intended) for Catholics for Obama, as was recently exemplified in your PBS interview and the TIME article on the Catholic vote by Amy Sullivan. The first two words of the article are “Doug Kmiec.”

This is a heavy burden to carry, and I am sure you have prayerfully and studiously considered your public role in the 2008 election. I had to reflect upon such issues in the 2000 and 2004 elections, so I know that you have contemplated that you will share responsibility for the consequences of Obama being elected president.

For example, when Sen. Obama promised a year ago, at a NARAL convention, that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act, saying it would the “first thing” he did as president, doesn't that worry you about the depth of his commitment to “reducing abortions?”

That's looking forward, but when we look back at Sen. Obama's record on abortion, partial-birth abortion, and protecting infants born in spite of abortions, we see a politician firmly committed to protecting “abortion rights.” So committed is Obama on this issue that he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act twice as an Illinois State senator and opposed it in committee all three years it was introduced.

I don't believe Sen. Obama when he says he will work to “reduce abortions.” This is not to say he has no compassion, but to recognize his compassion does not extend to the unborn, because he does not view them as human persons. As he said in 2003 on the floor of the Illinois legislature about why he opposed BAIPA:

Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.

If Sen. Obama has had a change of heart since 2003, or since his 2007 NARAL speech, then he should just say so; he should repudiate his votes against BAIPA and his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

His recent attempt to support some states’ limits on late-term abortions was better than nothing, as they say, but his subsequent back-peddling illustrated clearly his fear of alienating feminists and the pro-abortion lobby. What Obama says about abortion is another repackaged version of what pro-abortion Democrats, including many Catholics, have been saying for thirty years.

It’s precisely this kind of obfuscation on the key issue in politics – the inalienable right to life -- that I thought you and I both opposed.

As a Catholic jurist, you must surely have been disappointed, as I was, when Obama publicly refused to back the California marriage amendment. Judges, not legislators, have created gay marriage in the United States; the only way to stop judges from legislating is through the Federal Marriage Amendment or amendments to state constitutions.

Obama called the marriage amendment “divisive and discriminatory,” a view which I doubt you share. Frankly, I thought this statement gave you the opportunity to depart, gracefully, from the Obama campaign, but you didn’t take it.

Abortion, infanticide, and marriage -- Obama's positions on these issues alone make it impossible for me to support him. McCain, on the other hand, is reliable. His position on embryonic stem cells does not create equivalence between him and Obama on the life issue – the difference between the two candidates on life and marriage is stark.

I have noted, of course, your concern about the Iraq War. You argue that Catholic voters should reevaluate their support for President Bush, the GOP, and John McCain because of the war. You have come close to saying, but not quite, that support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq weakens any claim that Bush, McCain, or the GOP are closer to Catholic social teaching than the Democrats or Obama.

On this, once again, I cannot agree. President Bush has been the most committed pro-life president since Roe v. Wade. The abortion rate in the United States is at its lowest since 1974. The achievement of Bush and the GOP controlled Congress in limiting abortion cannot be offset by the Iraq War.

Whatever you think of the war, it is within the prudential prerogative of the president and the Congress, according to Church teaching, to make this decision (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2309). At the time of the invasion, Democrats as well as Republicans supported it.

There is no official Catholic position for or against the Iraq War. Comments were from one nation to another, not the Catholic Church, speaking diplomatically to each other. This is not to say I don’t recognize your deep concern over the Iraq War, but rather to argue the war cannot generate enough moral capital to offset Obama’s deficiencies.

Some Catholics have argued that if Obama and McCain were compared on prudential matters only – health care, poverty, minimum wage, energy, taxes, immigration, national security, war & peace – Obama would be their choice. If Obama and McCain held exactly the same positions on abortion and marriage, I would still opt for McCain on prudential grounds, but that is not, I believe, where the argument lies.

The argument between us is about those positions the Church has taught should not be compromised by our political judgment. In all that you have written and said, I still have not found a compelling reason that justifies your public support for Barack Obama.

 

All the best,

Deal W. Hudson

Director, InsideCatholic.com